CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 53 rights standards. Specific guidelines for use based on the results of independent scientific study should be drawn up. 6. All states should impose robust trade controls on law-enforcement equipment, containing lists of controlled and prohibited items, and establish control over associated activities such as promotion and brokering. Consideration should also be given to establishing an enduse catch-all clause in trade control regulations to ensure that equipment of concern not explicitly featured on control lists is not transferred. The clause should also serve to cover new technologies as they are developed. Any data held on licence applications for the trade in such devices should be made publicly available. 7. All producer states should make public the criteria currently applied to the export-licensing process for law-enforcement equipment in their jurisdictions. Where list-based controls are in place, a presumption of denial should be in operation regarding equipment that has no purpose other than in the commission of torture and other ill-treatment. Furthermore, no licences should be granted for the export of lawenforcement equipment where there are grounds to suspect that it may be used in torture or ill-treatment, or where the end user or users have a history of abuse or repression. More generally, existing standards such as the UN BPUFF and UN SMR should be regularly evaluated to ensure that they are in line with current developments in law-enforcement technologies and tactics. All states should develop comprehensive use-of-force guidelines explicitly stating when force may be used and what equipment is deployed for use. These guidelines should also incorporate human-rights components. All training programmes for equipment and techniques should be independently evaluated. There is a need for multilateral bodies engaged in the region, in particular the OSCE, the Council of Europe and the EU, to establish a coherent set of criteria for best practices relating to the trade and deployment of lawenforcement equipment. At present, different bodies appear to be promoting conflicting strategies, especially in relation to what equipment is permissible for deployment. In addition to promoting standards for the use of force, multilateral organizations and individual states conducting reform programmes should also develop guidelines establishing independent selection, testing and evaluation regimes of equipment being deployed by security personnel. Such regimes should be developed separately from those that have already been carried out by companies manufacturing or promoting equipment.